RANJIT SINGH Vs. SHIV RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition and has been filed by Ranjit Singh, the plaintiff, against the order of dismissal of his suit dated 31 -12 -1966 passed by the Sub -Judge. Jammu. The suit was tried under the Agriculturists Relief Act.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in the court below was that the defendant respondent owed Rs. 1500/ -on the basis of an agreement dated 15 -2 -58 executed by the latter in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant had partnership in a shop opened at Batote. The partnership was dissolved and on taking accounts a sum of Rs. 1500/ - was found due from the defendant to the plaintiff and that the defendant executed the agreement admitting the said claim of the plaintiff. This amount was payable in three yearly instalments of Rs. 500/ - each. But the defendant failed to make any payment towards the liquidation of the debr. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant on the ground that no money was payable by him to the plaintiff and in fact nothing was found due from him to the plaintiff at the time of the dissolution of the partnership. He however, admitted that there did exist the partnership of the shop but the agreement in question, he pleaded, was obtained under undue influence and coercion. The trial court raised the following issues in the case.

(3.) THE plaintiff examined two witnesses on his side to prove the execution of the agreement. The defendant also examined two witnesses on his behalf. The learned trial Judge after discussing the evidence led by the parties found that no doubt the execution of the agreement was proved, never -the less the onus lay heavily on the plaintiff to prove the consideration in the agreement which he had not discharged. The consideration mentioned in the agreement pertained to items of old transaction which had not been duly proved under the provisions of Agriculturists Relief Act and in the event of the defendants denying the consideration it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have proved the old accounts and the transaction and the history of dealings between the parties. The learned Judge therefore, decided issue No. 2 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this Judge the plaintiff had come up in revision before this court. I have heard the learned counsel for parties.